Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We do have an amendment on clause 4. I think everybody has the amendment in front of them.
It was quite clear from the testimony of most of the witnesses who spoke as part of the study for this proposed legislation that the end use of the animals going to Japan wasn't their concern; their concern was animal welfare during the transportation of those horses to Japan. When witnesses were questioned by members of this committee about their concerns with horse slaughter in Canada or for horses being food in other parts of the world, that didn't seem to be a concern. Our questions were around why the focus of this legislation isn't more on transportation and on improving the regulations around the transportation of those horses.
If the impetus of this bill is to improve the health and safety of animals in transportation, which I think all of us would agree should be paramount, we should have animal welfare top of mind when we're doing regulations. This should be for all horses that are being transported by air. Dr. Ireland, who is here, was quite clear in her testimony that:
The rules for horses with respect to their movement, their transport, are the same regardless of whether the horses are destined for another country for whatever purpose. Whether it's for show purposes, a competition or a feedlot, the same rules apply.
That is a quote from Dr. Ireland's testimony.
I know that there were comments in the preamble, which we will get to, about being cramped, which I don't feel is wording that should be used in legislation, but there has been no alternative proposed in this legislation as to what exactly should be used.
If indeed the focus of this legislation for Mr. Louis is to address animal welfare and the transportation of horses to Japan or any other destination, the focus should be on all horses, not just horses for slaughter, although I think that is a misdirection. I think that if that's indeed the focus, then it should apply to all horses being transported by air, not just for slaughter.